You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com> on 2012/12/14 16:54:34 UTC
Schema Mapping improvement
Hi guys,
since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a synchronization mapping.
Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
WDYT?
Regards,
F.
Re: R: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Thank you guys, this is the issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-257.
Kind regards,
F.
Il giorno 18/dic/2012, alle ore 09.40, Denis Signoretto ha scritto:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> After some clarifications about sync and provisioning process in Syncope,
> I agree with you it's a good improvement.
>
> Regards,
> Denis
>
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: ernst Developer [mailto:ernst.developer@gmail.com]
>> Inviato: lunedì 17 dicembre 2012 13:31
>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
>> Oggetto: Re: Schema Mapping improvement
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>>
>> 2012/12/17 Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno 15/dic/2012, alle ore 13.16, ernst Developer ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>
>>>> This seems a very good idea.
>>>> You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page
>> on which we could
>>>> do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for
>>>> propagation.
>>>
>>> Hi Ernst,
>>> yes, this is an alternative but I'd prefer to have all the
>> mappings about
>>> the same resource into a single tab.
>>> I think that, in this way, mapping configuration would be
>> simple and easy
>>> to manage (in terms of troubleshooting).
>>> Don't you agree?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> F.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ernst
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
>>>>> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>>>>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
>>>>>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
>>>>>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
>>>>>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
>>>>>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
>>>>>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
>>>>>> synchronization mapping.
>>>>>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
R: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>.
Hi Fabio,
After some clarifications about sync and provisioning process in Syncope,
I agree with you it's a good improvement.
Regards,
Denis
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: ernst Developer [mailto:ernst.developer@gmail.com]
> Inviato: lunedì 17 dicembre 2012 13:31
> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
> Oggetto: Re: Schema Mapping improvement
>
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>
> 2012/12/17 Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>
> >
> > Il giorno 15/dic/2012, alle ore 13.16, ernst Developer ha scritto:
> >
> > > Hi Fabio,
> > >
> > > This seems a very good idea.
> > > You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page
> on which we could
> > > do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for
> > > propagation.
> >
> > Hi Ernst,
> > yes, this is an alternative but I'd prefer to have all the
> mappings about
> > the same resource into a single tab.
> > I think that, in this way, mapping configuration would be
> simple and easy
> > to manage (in terms of troubleshooting).
> > Don't you agree?
> >
> > Regards,
> > F.
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ernst
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
> > >> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> -----Messaggio originale-----
> > >>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
> > >>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
> > >>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
> > >>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi guys,
> > >>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
> > >>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
> > >>>
> > >>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
> > >>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
> > >>>
> > >>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
> > >>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
> > >>> synchronization mapping.
> > >>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
> > >>>
> > >>> WDYT?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> F.
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by ernst Developer <er...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I agree.
2012/12/17 Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>
> Il giorno 15/dic/2012, alle ore 13.16, ernst Developer ha scritto:
>
> > Hi Fabio,
> >
> > This seems a very good idea.
> > You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page on which we could
> > do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for
> > propagation.
>
> Hi Ernst,
> yes, this is an alternative but I'd prefer to have all the mappings about
> the same resource into a single tab.
> I think that, in this way, mapping configuration would be simple and easy
> to manage (in terms of troubleshooting).
> Don't you agree?
>
> Regards,
> F.
>
> > Regards,
> > Ernst
> >
> >
> > 2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>
> >
> >>
> >> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
> >> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
> >>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
> >>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
> >>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
> >>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
> >>>
> >>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
> >>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
> >>>
> >>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
> >>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
> >>> synchronization mapping.
> >>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
> >>>
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> F.
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Il giorno 15/dic/2012, alle ore 13.16, ernst Developer ha scritto:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> This seems a very good idea.
> You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page on which we could
> do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for
> propagation.
Hi Ernst,
yes, this is an alternative but I'd prefer to have all the mappings about the same resource into a single tab.
I think that, in this way, mapping configuration would be simple and easy to manage (in terms of troubleshooting).
Don't you agree?
Regards,
F.
> Regards,
> Ernst
>
>
> 2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>
>
>>
>> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
>> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Denis
>>
>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
>>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
>>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
>>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
>>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
>>>
>>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
>>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
>>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
>>> synchronization mapping.
>>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> F.
>>>
>>
Re: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by ernst Developer <er...@gmail.com>.
Hi Fabio,
This seems a very good idea.
You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page on which we could
do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for
propagation.
Regards,
Ernst
2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>
>
> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
>
> Regards,
> Denis
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
> > Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
> > A: dev@syncope.apache.org
> > Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
> >
> >
> > Hi guys,
> > since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
> > configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
> >
> > From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
> > two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
> >
> > My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
> > specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
> > synchronization mapping.
> > Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards,
> > F.
> >
>
Re: R: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Il giorno 14/dic/2012, alle ore 17.07, Denis Signoretto ha scritto:
>
> Another way to get the same result couldn't be
> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
Hi Denis,
I am not sure to have well understood.
Do you mean the possibility to have different resource entities for the same target resource, one to be used for the provisioning and one for the synchronization?
You know, currently this kind of configuration is already possible.
Please, let me understand better.
Regards,
F.
>
> Regards,
> Denis
>
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
>> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
>>
>>
>> Hi guys,
>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
>>
>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
>>
>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
>> synchronization mapping.
>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> F.
>>
R: Schema Mapping improvement
Posted by Denis Signoretto <de...@intesys.it>.
Another way to get the same result couldn't be
creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources?
Regards,
Denis
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.martelli@gmail.com]
> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55
> A: dev@syncope.apache.org
> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement
>
>
> Hi guys,
> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping
> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement.
>
> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify
> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation.
>
> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to
> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a
> synchronization mapping.
> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> F.
>